The thing we all do, called Judging

[geko]

No

 

I really want to argue :( but have no idea what you meant

 

...

 

ps. i just read back my post before this one and it sounded quite abrupt, im pretty i wasnt cross when i wrote it mind :(

[TeleMad]

For survival, especially in the past as hunters and gatherers, we had to make decisions instantly, even if they turned out a second later to be wrong, because it's better for survival to react to a false danger than to ignore a real one. Further, the world we found ourselves in was vast, and it aided survival to group things according to their characteristics. For example, we didn't need to know exactly what type of snake was near our baby, just that some kind of snake was. Thus prejudging things, including different peoples, based on grouping them by their physical characteristis is natural. In this sense, prejudging is beneficial to our species even to this day.

 

But then there's another level of prejudging: the one that deals with our conscious behavior. When Archie Bunker condemns "those people" as being dishonest because of the color of their skin, he has gone past the instant subconscious act of grouping people based on their characteristics to continuing to willingly assign to the overall group the perceived negative qualities of a few. Now this is clearly illogical and unethical.

 

And most all of us subconsciously reinforce whatever prejudices we might have by selectively noting those instances where our perception of the other group pans out and ignoring those instances where it doesn't. After several rounds of such subconsciously biased reinforcing, we (wrongly) believe we have a rational basis for our prejudice.

[zadojla]

Now, you havent given this person the job because they're a tramp. You havent witnessed them attempting the work, have you? You dont know anything about them before they were a tramp, do you? You dont know what qualifications they have. You dont know whether they'd be good at this job or not [or do you?]. You dont know any of their abilities, you didnt give them any time or thought. But yet you've still dismissed them outright. You decided not to give them a chance because they smell like a tramp, didnt you?

How many of you reading this have actually been a hiring manager? I have been a manager in a position to hire staff at four different companies, from very small to very large.

It ain't easy. First you get resumes for many more people than you can afford the time to interview.

(Judgement #1) You have to reject the majority based on two pages of how they've described their experience.

(Judgement #2) You reject some applicants based on the interview. Perhaps they can't seem to answer the technical questions they should be able to. Perhaps they are personally offensive to you, or will be to your staff.

(Judgement #3) You have to pick the best and second best applicant.

(Judgement #4) You have to decide what you can pay, and if it is in line their expectation, your fiscal limitations, and what you are paying existing staff.

You offer the best the job, and if they don't accept it, offer it to the second best.

There is no time or point in attempting to find out if an obviously unsuitable applicant, like a tramp, might really be OK. Convincing me to hire them is their responsibility, not mine.

After all this, typically 25% of the people you hire are unsatisfactory and have to be dismissed within six months, and 50% are just OK. Only 25% are really good.

[geko]

(#1) You have to reject the majority based on two pages of how they've described their experience.

(#2) You reject some applicants based on the interview. Perhaps they can't seem to answer the technical questions they should be able to.

(#3) You have to pick the best and second best applicant.

 

There is no time or point in attempting to find out if an obviously unsuitable applicant, like a tramp, might really be OK.

 

Number 1 through 3 are based on prejudice. Eg. after 2 pages of description some were rejected, ie. what was said wasnt like (for whatever reason), rejected because of this = prejudice. People were rejected because, maybe, "they couldnt answer technical questions" = prejudice. The best and second best were picked = prejudice.

 

How do you know there's "no point" in giving the position to a tramp? You dont, it's prejudice. How are they "obviously unsuitable"? Because they're a tramp and you dont think they cut the mustard? Prejudice.

 

All you're doing by trying to justify not hiring a tramp on various grounds other than prejudice is lying. The reason the tramp isnt hired is because of prejudice. The reason there's prejudice towards the tramp is because you probably havent got the time, patience, resources or money to invest in them to see if they come up to scratch. It's too high a risk. It could be a waste of time and money. You go with a percentage shot by hiring someone who seems capable to you.

 

Of course i would do the same. Im not going to hire a tramp with no experience over someone who has qualifications and a track record of experience. Why? Because im prejudiced. ALL job vacancies will involve prejudice, eg. "sorry sir, you dont have an A in mathematics, im not hiring you" = prejudice.

 

There's nothing wrong with this type of prejudice. It's an intelligent thing to do. There's numerous examples. Top universities for instance reject 99% of the population simple on the grounds that "they're not smart enough" on paper to come and study there. This is prejudice.

 

Like i said in my very first post "Predjudice is healthy and necessary, but it's watched in case it's ever inaccurate", which telemad actually seconded but with an explanation of it.

[zadojla]

Number 1 through 3 are based on prejudice. Eg. after 2 pages of description some were rejected, ie. what was said wasnt like (for whatever reason), rejected because of this = prejudice. .

Am I "pre-judging" based on their resume before I see their job performance? Yes. Is it prejudice, in the sense that I am being unfair? No. Everyone gets the same chance to convince me.

People were rejected because, maybe, "they couldnt answer technical questions" = prejudice..

That's not prejudice. The ability to answer technical questions is a direct indicator of relevent knowledge.

The best and second best were picked = prejudice..

Which would you pick?

How do you know there's "no point" in giving the position to a tramp? You dont, it's prejudice. How are they "obviously unsuitable"? Because they're a tramp and you dont think they cut the mustard? Prejudice..

No, experience. And hiring someome who smells will earn you a trip to Human Resources when the existing staff complains. A job is more than just technical performance.

All you're doing by trying to justify not hiring a tramp on various grounds other than prejudice is lying. The reason the tramp isnt hired is because of prejudice. The reason there's prejudice towards the tramp is because you probably havent got the time, patience, resources or money to invest in them to see if they come up to scratch. It's too high a risk. It could be a waste of time and money. You go with a percentage shot by hiring someone who seems capable to you..

Lying?? I don't think so. Why should I spend my time and company resources in determining whether a tramp is suitable? I already know that he is careless about details and unwilling to make the adjustments necessary to work in a business environment. I know I am likely to get complaints from the other workers, not because they are prejudiced, but because they have to sit next to someone who smells for a 12-hour shift.

Of course i would do the same. Im not going to hire a tramp with no experience over someone who has qualifications and a track record of experience. Why? Because im prejudiced. ALL job vacancies will involve prejudice, eg. "sorry sir, you dont have an A in mathematics, im not hiring you" = prejudice.

 

There's nothing wrong with this type of prejudice. It's an intelligent thing to do. There's numerous examples. Top universities for instance reject 99% of the population simple on the grounds that "they're not smart enough" on paper to come and study there. This is prejudice.

 

Like i said in my very first post "Predjudice is healthy and necessary, but it's watched in case it's ever inaccurate", which telemad actually seconded but with an explanation of it.

To me, the word "prejudice" implies selection based on criteria that have nothing to do with potential job performance. So, I am forbidden by law to ask an applicant their age, marital status, child care situation, or where they live. I am forbidden by law to decide on the basis of age, sex, or ethnicity.

Are resumes ideal screening tools? No, they stink. Are interviews perfect? Absolutely not. But the results are "judgement", not "prejudice." The only way to avoid prejudice is to try each applicant for a period of time, and then keep the best. That is impractical.

 

Suppose you tell me how I should do this. I once received 82 resumes for one open position. How would you go about deciding who to interview and hire? Be sure your answer does not involve prejudice.

[nemo]

apparently, a prejudice-free world is one where i will no longer be bound by the unreasonable constraints of personal hygiene, relevant experience, or job performance. i'll have to bring this up the next time someone complains about me chewing on my toe nails during a meeting.

[pgrmdave]

Prejudice is defined by dictionary.com to be

1. a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

b. A preconceived preference or idea.

2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.

3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.

4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

 

As such, I cannot see how looking at a person's resume can be prejudice - there has been examination of facts.

 

I cannot see how not hiring a tramp is prejudice - it is not irrational, the person has shown to be uncaring as to their own personal appearance. If the person merely had bad fasion, or was simply ugly, it would be prejudice.

[geko]

Am I "pre-judging" based on their resume before I see their job performance? Yes. Is it prejudice, in the sense that I am being unfair?

 

Prejudice doesnt necessarily imply unfairness. Having prejudice can be favourable as well as unfavourable on the subject in question.

 

The ability to answer technical questions is a direct indicator of relevent knowledge.

 

So knowledge is now a requirement of employment? So those that dont have the knowledge, experience prejudice for being too thick?

 

Which would you pick?

 

The one who i thought would be the best at the job of course, the same as you.

 

hiring someome who smells will earn you a trip to Human Resources when the existing staff complains. A job is more than just technical performance.

 

So because they smell, you rationalized that if you hire them there will be an influx of complaints from existing employees about it and this will bother you because you'll have to spend time down at human resources trying to rectify the problem, in which case you dont hire them to begin with to save you the hassle of bothering with all this in the first place.

 

Also, what is more important, technical knowledge or personal hygiene for a job in question?

 

Why should I spend my time and company resources in determining whether a tramp is suitable?

 

I didnt say you should, nor have i mentioned a reason why you would want to.

 

The only way to avoid prejudice is to try each applicant for a period of time, and then keep the best. That is impractical.

 

Of course it is, so why bother in the first place. A potential, complete waste of resources. Like i said, everyone goes with the percentage. I agree.

 

I once received 82 resumes for one open position. How would you go about deciding who to interview and hire? Be sure your answer does not involve prejudice.

 

I dont have to try and make sure my answer isnt prejudiced one way or another, i realise it is. Id choose whoever i thought was best.

 

...

 

By the way, when you say that you

 

already know that he is careless about details and unwilling to make the adjustments necessary to work in a business environment.

,

 

you forgot his history. He used to be a weatlhy managing director for one of the largest import and export steel manufacturers in the world. He was conned by the rest of the board into committing fraud by signing an agreement under false pretences that let the rest of the board off whilst landing him with the full front of the allegations. He was found guilty. He was then sued by his nefarious wife who took him for everything he owned, totally stripped of his assets and sentenced to 12 months in prison. With the penalties on his record he hasnt been able to secure himself a single job let alone a place to live.

 

Is your opinion of this man still the same? Of course, you didnt know this to begin with, but that's not the point is it.

[geko]

apparently, a prejudice-free world is one where i will no longer be bound by the unreasonable constraints of personal hygiene, relevant experience, or job performance. i'll have to bring this up the next time someone complains about me chewing on my toe nails during a meeting.

 

Strange how you appear to jest on one side of the argument but yet it seems like you havent got the idea. Why does the world have to be prejudice free? Do you think it ought to be? Do you think it ever will be?

[geko]

I cannot see how looking at a person's resume can be prejudice - there has been examination of facts.

 

Looking at it isnt prejudice. Deciding whether one person or another is going to be good at a particular task or not involves prejudice of some description. That's for the people who get the duty of performing the task and against the people who werent.

[nemo]

Strange how you appear to jest on one side of the argument but yet it seems like you havent got the idea. Why does the world have to be prejudice free? Do you think it ought to be? Do you think it ever will be?

 

If you consider a careful examination of the facts available to you, coupled with your own personal experience and the responsibility you have to the organization that is paying you to review a resume to be prejudice, then I should hope that the world is never free of that particular brand of prejudice. Perhaps I'm still 'not getting it'.

 

I don't agree that any decision making process is an implementation of prejudice. I think that over-application of the word prejudice is often a convenient method for avoiding any examination of one's own lack of ability or qualifications.

[zadojla]

With the penalties on his record he hasnt been able to secure himself a single job let alone a place to live.

 

Is your opinion of this man still the same? Of course, you didnt know this to begin with, but that's not the point is it.

But now I'm off the hook. My company will not allow me to hire a convicted felon.

 

And BTW, my field is technical. Knowledge of the field is a prerequisite to employment. Can I teach someone from scratch? Of course, but it will take two to four years full-time. Most of my staff has 20 to 40 years of experience.

 

And additionally, although common practice involves prejudice against unemployed applicants, I will always pick a qualified unemployed applicant over an equally qualified employed one. Why? They are generally more grateful and work harder. And I have been unemployed also.

[Fishteacher73]

Looking at it isnt prejudice. Deciding whether one person or another is going to be good at a particular task or not involves prejudice of some description. That's for the people who get the duty of performing the task and against the people who werent.

 

 

There have been studies that indicated that there was a racial bias on resumes. A group of about 50 individuals posted to mirror resumes on a popular job stie (monster, if I recall). The only difference was the name used. If the name was Joe Schome or a "normal" it had a seklection rate of about 2 to 1 over an resume with an ethnic name.

 

Here's a link to a similar study with similar results:

http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/news/capideas/spring03/racialbias.html

[zadojla]

There have been studies that indicated that there was a racial bias on resumes.

Absolutely true. I know of managers who perform the ethnic prescreening described in the study. It is despicable. I do not.

[geko]

...managers who perform the ethnic prescreening described in the study. It is despicable.

 

This actually makes me think of an interesting point. Has anyone noticed nowadays (i live in the uk, may be different elsewhere), that when you apply for a job you have to fill in one of the those 'equal opportunity' questionaires? You know, it asks your age, nationality, marital status, sexual orientation, religious affiliation (if living in northern ireland) etc. I wonder what the point of all this is?

 

As it happens, i know someone who's quite 'high-up' in a large employer organisation. They tell me that it's a requirement that they employ varying numbers of people from various backgrounds. They have figures they must meet. They must, for example, have a certain amount of women working in certain positions in their company. A certain amount of asians, blacks, and other ethnic groups that are seen as a 'minority' working in certain positions. They must have young, mature and old people working for them in varying numbers.

 

Now, of course, im not saying that i dont agree with women working and having employment. Or asians, or blacks (or whites if they're seen as the 'minority'), but this has all come about from the progression towards 'equal opportunities' in places of employment. Nowadays, your gender, ethnic origin, sexual and religious orientation isnt meant to have a bearing on whether you get the job or not.

 

Anyway, to me, it still sounds as if just being white, black, asian, christian, homosexual, married, single, young or old might just get you that job afterall :naughty:

[Fishteacher73]

In the US it is almost inverted. Questions such as those may be asked on the aplication, but the applicant is not required to answer them.

[zadojla]

In the US it is almost inverted. Questions such as those may be asked on the aplication, but the applicant is not required to answer them.

Some of that varies by state in the US. In NJ, I am not allowed to ask, nor is the application allowed to ask, age, race, marital status, whether they have children, nor am I allowed to consider location. That is, if someone lives 150 miles away, I am technically only allowed to tell them the hours and attendence requirements. It is not my business how they get to work, as long as they are there. Years ago, I actually failed to get an excellent job, even though I was the favored candidate, because HR thought I lived too far away, and overrode the hiring manager. It was only a 1.25 hour drive.